What could make morality objective?

Should you think about your duty, or about the consequences of your actions? Or should you concentrate on becoming a good person?

Moderators: AMod, iMod

uwot
Posts: 5812
Joined: Mon Jul 23, 2012 7:21 am

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by uwot »

Skepdick wrote: Thu Dec 23, 2021 6:00 pm
uwot wrote: Thu Dec 23, 2021 5:40 pmYeah whatever. Now make a science of it
It is a science. Probability theory...
You idiot. All you had to do was say ethics is not a science, and we could all sit down and have a biscuit. Go on then, stitch probability theory and morality together. What a leap that will be, to go from is to ought, all the way to maybe to ought.
Skepdick wrote: Thu Dec 23, 2021 6:00 pmAre we going to have another back-and-forth where you demonstrate that you don't distinguish between odds and probabilities?
If you think that's where it might lead, I can save you the bother and tell you now; I don't give a fuck.
promethean75
Posts: 964
Joined: Sun Nov 04, 2018 10:29 pm

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by promethean75 »

"we could all sit down and have a biscuit"

'it should be easy to see.... the crux of the biscuit is the apostrophe' - Fido
Skepdick
Posts: 9160
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by Skepdick »

uwot wrote: Thu Dec 23, 2021 7:17 pm You idiot. All you had to do was say ethics is not a science, and we could all sit down and have a biscuit. Go on then, stitch probability theory and morality together. What a leap that will be, to go from is to ought, all the way to maybe to ought.
You are talking about oughts!?!? Way to waste everyone's time.

I can't even be bothered. I am describing morality, not prescribing it.

Pointing out that (gravity|morality) is objective carries absolutely no obligation to obey either. Go fly or something...
uwot
Posts: 5812
Joined: Mon Jul 23, 2012 7:21 am

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by uwot »

Skepdick wrote: Thu Dec 23, 2021 7:26 pmYou are talking about oughts!?!? Way to waste everyone's time.
My point precisely.
Skepdick wrote: Thu Dec 23, 2021 7:26 pmI can't even be bothered. I am describing morality, not prescribing it.
Oh? So is it odd or probable?
Skepdick
Posts: 9160
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by Skepdick »

uwot wrote: Thu Dec 23, 2021 8:02 pm Oh? So is it odd or probable?
It's highly probable it's objective...
uwot
Posts: 5812
Joined: Mon Jul 23, 2012 7:21 am

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by uwot »

Skepdick wrote: Thu Dec 23, 2021 8:17 pm
uwot wrote: Thu Dec 23, 2021 8:02 pm Oh? So is it odd or probable?
It's highly probable it's objective...
So we agree:
uwot wrote: Wed Dec 22, 2021 5:24 pm Oh for fuck's sake. Morality is objective and it's very easy. in this brief clip, three of Britain's finest philosophers explain: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JmoG4JY_T58
Age
Posts: 10981
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by Age »

Peter Holmes wrote: Thu Dec 23, 2021 1:25 pm
Age wrote: Thu Dec 23, 2021 10:25 am
Peter Holmes wrote: Wed Dec 22, 2021 3:29 pm
I use the word 'we' to refer to English speakers, from whom you and I learned how to speak and understand English.
But NOT EVERY english speaker views the same things as you do here, NOR has the same opinions as you do here, OBVIOUSLY. So, WHY do you use the 'we' word here in such a False, Wrong, and Incorrect way?
Peter Holmes wrote: Wed Dec 22, 2021 3:29 pm I've explained how I think we use the words truth, fact, objectivity, and so on.
WHY do you BELIEVE you could even speak for ALL of us here.

Also, how you think we use those words is OBVIOUSLY just plain Wrong and Incorrect.
Peter Holmes wrote: Wed Dec 22, 2021 3:29 pm If you disagree with my explanations, please explain how you use these words.
Have I even seen your explanations?

What you seem to have completely FAILED to NOTICE, and thus have NOT YET recognized, is that you, like just about EVERY other human being in the actual days when this was being written, only make things true or not true by the way you describe and/or define the words you use. See, there is absolutely NO thing that could make 'morality objective', to you only, and this is ONLY because of the way you personally view and define the words 'morality' and 'objective'. Just like 'you', other human beings, for example, either BELIEVE 'God exists' or 'God does not exist' not because ANY one of you has ANY ACTUAL PROOF either way, but solely because of the way you ALL individually describe and/or define the words you use, and especially the word 'God', in that example.
Peter Holmes wrote: Wed Dec 22, 2021 3:29 pm My problem is that, to me, your questions show that you haven't understood or thought through the implications of what I'm saying.
The implications of what you are saying are VERY OBVIOUS, and can be VERY CLEARLY SEEN. But what is understood, from thinking through, may be VERY DIFFERENT from what you have come to understand.
Peter Holmes wrote: Wed Dec 22, 2021 3:29 pm So, for me, it'd be better if you set out your premises and conclusion - rather than just ask questions - so that I/we can see if your argument is valid and sound.
But I am NOT arguing for, NOR against, ANY thing here.

I just ask 'you', posters, CLARIFYING and/or CHALLENGING questions, just to SEE if 'you' REALLY do KNOW what you are talking about. SEE, I ALREADY KNOW what thee ACTUAL and IRREFUTABLE Truth IS, which 'you', human beings, WILL and DO ALSO COME TO SEE, and KNOW.
Peter Holmes wrote: Wed Dec 22, 2021 3:29 pm For example - is this this one of your premises? : 'There are no facts, but only opinions'. If so, I can easily show you why this premise detonates itself.
Here we have a GREAT EXAMPLE of an ANOTHER ATTEMPT at DEFLECTION.

I have asked you are series of CLARIFYING QUESTIONS, of which NOT one of them was CLARIFIED, by you. But yet you want to ask me a CLARIFYING QUESTION now. Which, by the way, is only an ATTEMPT at FURTHER DETRACTION, but which ACTUALLY HIGHLIGHTS your INABILITY to back up and support YOUR CLAIM here in this thread of YOURS.

If you EVER get around to CLARIFYING the below, then we can PROCEED and MOVE FORWARD.

YOU CLAIM:
Nothing can make morality objective.

I ASKED YOU:
Is that an objective statement, or is that just your own subjective viewpoint, which is just you expressing your own beliefs, judgments, or opinions?

If it is the latter, then it therefore could be false, wrong, and/or incorrect, correct?

But if it is the former, then what, EXACTLY, makes that one an objective statement?


Oh, and by the way, the answer is 'No'.
Nothing can make morality objective, because there are no moral facts - no moral features of reality that are or were the case.
What we have here is a great example of when those people, "from the olden days", BELIEVED some thing was true then, as clearly demonstrated here, they were NOT OPEN to even LOOKING AT ANY opposing view from theirs, let alone DISCUSSING ANY thing other than that FIXED BELIEF of theirs.

I have ALREADY explained WHY they continually misbehaved in this Wrong and DESTRUCTIVE way.

What is even more laughable here is that this one also actually BELIEVES that it personally knows 'reality', and if any one else does NOT agree with and accept their OWN PERSONAL view of 'reality', then it is the "other" who does not know what they are talking about.

This one is so BLINDED by its OWN BELIEFS here that it could NOT YET SEE that its claim here is just ANOTHER 'opinion', and that is all it is. Of which, by the way, was NOT a feature of 'Reality', AT ALL.
Peter Holmes wrote: Thu Dec 23, 2021 1:25 pm The above is a factual assertion, with a truth-value - true or false - because it claims something about reality that may or may not be the case.
And here we have just ANOTHER OPINION, but which it is ACTUALLY True, this time.

That is what you wrote above here is an 'factual assertion' of yours, which OBVIOUSLY means that what you 'assert' is NOT necessarily true, right, nor correct at all. It is just an 'assertion', or an 'opinion', or YOURS, after all.

You are also right in that 'your assertion/opinion' is either true or false, or partly true.

And, again you are also correct in that 'your own personal assertion/opinion' above here is just you, personally, claiming some thing about 'Reality', Itself, which may or may not be the case.

And, OBVIOUSLY, your claim is NOT the case AT ALL.

As ALREADY evidenced AND proved IRREFUTABLY True.
Peter Holmes wrote: Thu Dec 23, 2021 1:25 pm In my opinion, that factual assertion is demonstrably true. There are no moral facts, but only moral opinions, with no truth-value.
We KNOW what YOUR OPINION and BELIEF is here. You have been presenting YOUR BELIEF from the opening post.

You have just FAILED, so far, to demonstrate that your opinion and BELIEF here is true.
Peter Holmes wrote: Thu Dec 23, 2021 1:25 pm If you - or anyone - can produce an example of a moral fact, that would show that I'm wrong. END OF STORY.
Very simple and easy to do, and has ALREADY been done.

I have ALREADY explained, on numerous occasions, how 'you', human beings, can find and UNCOVER Facts, which are obviously IRREFUTABLE, and ever-lasting.

But of course some of 'you', posters, have not yet seen, or have not remembered this, explanation.
Age
Posts: 10981
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by Age »

uwot wrote: Thu Dec 23, 2021 4:23 pm
Skepdick wrote: Thu Dec 23, 2021 3:20 pmIf you were intellectually honest and consistent (which you are not), you would have already told us which observable phenomena you would accept as evidence for the objectivity of morality.

Stop wasting everyone's time. You twat.
Don't you know what someone being a c unt looks like? If you want to make morality a science, find something to measure.
If you still can NOT YET find some thing to measure, then you are NOT LOOKING hard enough.
uwot
Posts: 5812
Joined: Mon Jul 23, 2012 7:21 am

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by uwot »

Age wrote: Thu Dec 23, 2021 9:09 pmIf you still can NOT YET find some thing to measure, then you are NOT LOOKING hard enough.
Age, you are a fucking idiot. Merry Christmas, by the way.
Age
Posts: 10981
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by Age »

uwot wrote: Thu Dec 23, 2021 9:36 pm
Age wrote: Thu Dec 23, 2021 9:09 pmIf you still can NOT YET find some thing to measure, then you are NOT LOOKING hard enough.
Age, you are a fucking idiot. Merry Christmas, by the way.
LOL Here is another GREAT EXAMPLE of there NOT being ANY CURIOSITY left in the adult human being, in the days when this was being written.

The MAIN REASON WHY those adult human beings were about the SLOWEST ones, in ALL of human history, in progressing/evolving forward was because they had lost just about ALL their CURIOSITY.

They had learned to accept ONLY 'that' what they had ALREADY BELIEVED was true, right, or correct, and NOT be OPEN to ANY thing else.

Finding what is measurable in order to make 'morality' 'a science' is a Truly SIMPLE and EASY thing to do, contrary to what some people obviously BELIEVE.
User avatar
Sculptor
Posts: 5330
Joined: Wed Jun 26, 2019 11:32 pm

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by Sculptor »

This is an od topic oft repeated across many threads on many forums.
The problem could be answered simply enough for the moral objectivists. They would simply need to make an objective statement.

Sadly these long years of lurking, contrinbuting and arguing, not once have I seen such a statement made.
promethean75
Posts: 964
Joined: Sun Nov 04, 2018 10:29 pm

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by promethean75 »

I mean I can use the word in countless interactions with people during the day, and not once would there be any confusion regarding the use of it. Like nobody would say 'but wait, apply quantum entanglement and fuzzy logic to Locke's secondary properties and Aristotle's law of the excluded middle and it's logically impossible for the qualia of experience to have an objective nature!'

Imagine trying to play a football game with these guys.
Peter Holmes
Posts: 2367
Joined: Tue Jul 18, 2017 3:53 pm

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by Peter Holmes »

Age wrote: Thu Dec 23, 2021 8:53 pm
Peter Holmes wrote: Thu Dec 23, 2021 1:25 pm
Age wrote: Thu Dec 23, 2021 10:25 am

But NOT EVERY english speaker views the same things as you do here, NOR has the same opinions as you do here, OBVIOUSLY. So, WHY do you use the 'we' word here in such a False, Wrong, and Incorrect way?


WHY do you BELIEVE you could even speak for ALL of us here.

Also, how you think we use those words is OBVIOUSLY just plain Wrong and Incorrect.



Have I even seen your explanations?

What you seem to have completely FAILED to NOTICE, and thus have NOT YET recognized, is that you, like just about EVERY other human being in the actual days when this was being written, only make things true or not true by the way you describe and/or define the words you use. See, there is absolutely NO thing that could make 'morality objective', to you only, and this is ONLY because of the way you personally view and define the words 'morality' and 'objective'. Just like 'you', other human beings, for example, either BELIEVE 'God exists' or 'God does not exist' not because ANY one of you has ANY ACTUAL PROOF either way, but solely because of the way you ALL individually describe and/or define the words you use, and especially the word 'God', in that example.


The implications of what you are saying are VERY OBVIOUS, and can be VERY CLEARLY SEEN. But what is understood, from thinking through, may be VERY DIFFERENT from what you have come to understand.


But I am NOT arguing for, NOR against, ANY thing here.

I just ask 'you', posters, CLARIFYING and/or CHALLENGING questions, just to SEE if 'you' REALLY do KNOW what you are talking about. SEE, I ALREADY KNOW what thee ACTUAL and IRREFUTABLE Truth IS, which 'you', human beings, WILL and DO ALSO COME TO SEE, and KNOW.


Here we have a GREAT EXAMPLE of an ANOTHER ATTEMPT at DEFLECTION.

I have asked you are series of CLARIFYING QUESTIONS, of which NOT one of them was CLARIFIED, by you. But yet you want to ask me a CLARIFYING QUESTION now. Which, by the way, is only an ATTEMPT at FURTHER DETRACTION, but which ACTUALLY HIGHLIGHTS your INABILITY to back up and support YOUR CLAIM here in this thread of YOURS.

If you EVER get around to CLARIFYING the below, then we can PROCEED and MOVE FORWARD.

YOU CLAIM:
Nothing can make morality objective.

I ASKED YOU:
Is that an objective statement, or is that just your own subjective viewpoint, which is just you expressing your own beliefs, judgments, or opinions?

If it is the latter, then it therefore could be false, wrong, and/or incorrect, correct?

But if it is the former, then what, EXACTLY, makes that one an objective statement?


Oh, and by the way, the answer is 'No'.
Nothing can make morality objective, because there are no moral facts - no moral features of reality that are or were the case.
What we have here is a great example of when those people, "from the olden days", BELIEVED some thing was true then, as clearly demonstrated here, they were NOT OPEN to even LOOKING AT ANY opposing view from theirs, let alone DISCUSSING ANY thing other than that FIXED BELIEF of theirs.

I have ALREADY explained WHY they continually misbehaved in this Wrong and DESTRUCTIVE way.

What is even more laughable here is that this one also actually BELIEVES that it personally knows 'reality', and if any one else does NOT agree with and accept their OWN PERSONAL view of 'reality', then it is the "other" who does not know what they are talking about.

This one is so BLINDED by its OWN BELIEFS here that it could NOT YET SEE that its claim here is just ANOTHER 'opinion', and that is all it is. Of which, by the way, was NOT a feature of 'Reality', AT ALL.
Peter Holmes wrote: Thu Dec 23, 2021 1:25 pm The above is a factual assertion, with a truth-value - true or false - because it claims something about reality that may or may not be the case.
And here we have just ANOTHER OPINION, but which it is ACTUALLY True, this time.

That is what you wrote above here is an 'factual assertion' of yours, which OBVIOUSLY means that what you 'assert' is NOT necessarily true, right, nor correct at all. It is just an 'assertion', or an 'opinion', or YOURS, after all.

You are also right in that 'your assertion/opinion' is either true or false, or partly true.

And, again you are also correct in that 'your own personal assertion/opinion' above here is just you, personally, claiming some thing about 'Reality', Itself, which may or may not be the case.

And, OBVIOUSLY, your claim is NOT the case AT ALL.

As ALREADY evidenced AND proved IRREFUTABLY True.
Peter Holmes wrote: Thu Dec 23, 2021 1:25 pm In my opinion, that factual assertion is demonstrably true. There are no moral facts, but only moral opinions, with no truth-value.
We KNOW what YOUR OPINION and BELIEF is here. You have been presenting YOUR BELIEF from the opening post.

You have just FAILED, so far, to demonstrate that your opinion and BELIEF here is true.
Peter Holmes wrote: Thu Dec 23, 2021 1:25 pm If you - or anyone - can produce an example of a moral fact, that would show that I'm wrong. END OF STORY.
Very simple and easy to do, and has ALREADY been done.

I have ALREADY explained, on numerous occasions, how 'you', human beings, can find and UNCOVER Facts, which are obviously IRREFUTABLE, and ever-lasting.

But of course some of 'you', posters, have not yet seen, or have not remembered this, explanation.
Okay. You're right, I'm wrong, I'm weak, you're strong.

Now, please remind me of that killer example of a moral fact: a moral feature of reality, or a description of such.

And then I'll show you why it isn't what you say it is. As usual.
Skepdick
Posts: 9160
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by Skepdick »

Peter Holmes wrote: Fri Dec 24, 2021 9:46 am Now, please remind me of that killer example of a moral fact: a moral feature of reality, or a description of such.
Now, pleasae remind me of that killer example of a gravitational fact: a gravitational feature of reality, or a description of such.
Peter Holmes wrote: Fri Dec 24, 2021 9:46 am And then I'll show you why it isn't what you say it is. As usual.
And then I'll show you why you are an intellectually dishonest, immoral twat.
Age
Posts: 10981
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by Age »

Peter Holmes wrote: Fri Dec 24, 2021 9:46 am
Age wrote: Thu Dec 23, 2021 8:53 pm
Peter Holmes wrote: Thu Dec 23, 2021 1:25 pm
Nothing can make morality objective, because there are no moral facts - no moral features of reality that are or were the case.
What we have here is a great example of when those people, "from the olden days", BELIEVED some thing was true then, as clearly demonstrated here, they were NOT OPEN to even LOOKING AT ANY opposing view from theirs, let alone DISCUSSING ANY thing other than that FIXED BELIEF of theirs.

I have ALREADY explained WHY they continually misbehaved in this Wrong and DESTRUCTIVE way.

What is even more laughable here is that this one also actually BELIEVES that it personally knows 'reality', and if any one else does NOT agree with and accept their OWN PERSONAL view of 'reality', then it is the "other" who does not know what they are talking about.

This one is so BLINDED by its OWN BELIEFS here that it could NOT YET SEE that its claim here is just ANOTHER 'opinion', and that is all it is. Of which, by the way, was NOT a feature of 'Reality', AT ALL.
Peter Holmes wrote: Thu Dec 23, 2021 1:25 pm The above is a factual assertion, with a truth-value - true or false - because it claims something about reality that may or may not be the case.
And here we have just ANOTHER OPINION, but which it is ACTUALLY True, this time.

That is what you wrote above here is an 'factual assertion' of yours, which OBVIOUSLY means that what you 'assert' is NOT necessarily true, right, nor correct at all. It is just an 'assertion', or an 'opinion', or YOURS, after all.

You are also right in that 'your assertion/opinion' is either true or false, or partly true.

And, again you are also correct in that 'your own personal assertion/opinion' above here is just you, personally, claiming some thing about 'Reality', Itself, which may or may not be the case.

And, OBVIOUSLY, your claim is NOT the case AT ALL.

As ALREADY evidenced AND proved IRREFUTABLY True.
Peter Holmes wrote: Thu Dec 23, 2021 1:25 pm In my opinion, that factual assertion is demonstrably true. There are no moral facts, but only moral opinions, with no truth-value.
We KNOW what YOUR OPINION and BELIEF is here. You have been presenting YOUR BELIEF from the opening post.

You have just FAILED, so far, to demonstrate that your opinion and BELIEF here is true.
Peter Holmes wrote: Thu Dec 23, 2021 1:25 pm If you - or anyone - can produce an example of a moral fact, that would show that I'm wrong. END OF STORY.
Very simple and easy to do, and has ALREADY been done.

I have ALREADY explained, on numerous occasions, how 'you', human beings, can find and UNCOVER Facts, which are obviously IRREFUTABLE, and ever-lasting.

But of course some of 'you', posters, have not yet seen, or have not remembered this, explanation.
Okay. You're right, I'm wrong, I'm weak, you're strong.
I am right and strong, and you are wrong and weak, in relation to 'what' EXACTLY?
Peter Holmes wrote: Fri Dec 24, 2021 9:46 am Now, please remind me of that killer example of a moral fact: a moral feature of reality, or a description of such.
'What' so-called "killer" example are you talking about and referring to here, EXACTLY?
Peter Holmes wrote: Fri Dec 24, 2021 9:46 am And then I'll show you why it isn't what you say it is.
I do NOT even know what you are referring to, let alone me saying 'it' (whatever 'it' is EXACTLY) is, EXACTLY.
Peter Holmes wrote: Fri Dec 24, 2021 9:46 am As usual.
Are you even able to back up and support YOUR CLAIM here?

If yes, then will you do it?

If no, then WHY NOT?
Post Reply